A widely published account of President Bush’s statement that the U.S. Navy will stop using the islet of Vieques in the territory of Puerto Rico for bombing practice contained the following quote:
George W. Bush
The phrasing “friends and neighbors” who “don’t want us there” makes me doubt whether President Bush realizes that Puerto Rico is U.S. territory. One might put it this way if the island in question were part of Japan, but it seems odd for Bush to refer to U.S. citizens as “our…friends”. Who is the “us” he’s referring to? Possibly he meant “us” as “all us Americans except Puerto Ricans”, but that seems a stretch, especially since it’s not all other Americans who are bombing Vieques, only the U.S. Navy. Does he mean “us” to read “the U.S. Navy”? I might believe that, if Bush were a Navy vet and still felt the Navy was “his people”, but not only has he never been in the Navy, he was in the Air Force, which would make it even less likely for Bush to identify with the Navy than someone who had never been in the military at all.
Another way to look at it. Suppose the bombing practice were taking place in Iowa. Would Bush refer to Iowans as “our friends and neighbors” and to the people doing the bombing as “us”? I think not.
Somebody tell me our President really isn’t that stupid.
He is terminally graceless in his speech, but given that point, overanalyzing his words when he often can’t get them right seems a bit pointless.
“Neighbors and friends” is simply “down home plain speakin’” for people we like.
“Us” is, rather clearly, the U.S. military (of which he is Commander in Chief).
I have seen lots of evidence of Dubya’s intellectual laziness (as opposed to genuine stupidity), but I wouldn’t smack him down just for being born with a silver foot in his mouth and this does not even seem to be an occasion of that.
Yes, Puerto Ricans are U.S. citizens. No, Puerto Rico is not a foreign country, not exactly. But it’s NOT the same as Iowa.
The people of Puerto Rico have made it clear at the polls that they don’t WANT to be a state. They have serious misgivings about being “Americans.” They have what they consider to be a very different, distinct culture, and
they don’t want to be an integral part of the United States.
They also don’t want independence. Basically, they’ve CHOSEN to be neither fish nor fowl.
Look at it another way- do the Puerto Ricans condemning the Navy view the U.S. Navy as “their” Navy? Or do they view it as an unwelcome foreign imperialist intruder? Their rhetoric suggests the latter. If Puerto Ricans want to be regarded as “real” Americans, like Iowans, it might help if they’d ditch the “Yankee go home” rhetoric.
If Puerto Ricans consider themselves a land apart from the USA, can they be surprised that mainlanders regard them that way, too?
Lets be blunt…where I’m sitting now, in Washington DC, isn’t a state.
And I think what the people of Viques are saying isn’t, “Go home, Yankee imperialist pigs!”, but “Er, um, hi…you know that island you’re bombing? We live here.” Of course, this thread is probably more of a GD.
The fact is that Puerto Rico isn’t exactly part of the United States and it isn’t exactly NOT part of the United States either. This case is different than it would be if the bombing range were in one of the 50 states or the District of Columbia.
I’m perfectly happy with the current ambiguous status of Puerto Rico, but it is ambiguous. Puerto Ricans are “our friends and neighbors”, not “us” since they can sever their relationship with the US if the decide to. There are plenty of relationships like this in the world, and the people who live in the associated territories usually don’t consider themselves part of the mainstream.
Thank you for getting it. There ARE guys saying “go home, Yankee pigs” – mostly professional political activists from outside Vieques, including such luminaries as Al Sharpton.
The more Bush speaks, the more obvious what an ignoramus we elected. Answering questions in Poland, someone asked him about visas here. He said that we welcome “Poles.” He said Chicago has “a great many of them.”
I always thought “Poles” was a slur, but maybe not. What gets me is that if he is to bring up Chicago’s Polish population, he should have the figures, instead of saying, “Oh, Yeah. Chicago, it has lots of them.” It seems to me, knowing he is going to Poland (I assume he knew beforehand), why didn’t he do some basic research of the Polish population in the large US metropolitan areas?
For one, we would have Congressmen and Senators – or at least EV’s – with which to back up our position…
But the big deal with Shrub’s statement is that the standard way of addressing a population of American citizens ANYWHERE (Puerto Rico, Guam, North Dakota, the Navajo Reservation) has been as “fellow citizens.” It’s a bit jarring to many for him to say “our friends and neighbors” as if he were talking 'bout Guatemala or Belize… but as tomndebb says, I’ll chalk that one up to his being the Anti-“Great Communicator.”
BTW the really bad one from our POV is the “they don’t want us there” – all he or anyone really knows for a fact is that many people here have noisily proclaimed they’ve had enough of one specific Fed Government activity – it’s by no means unanimous
José
BTW the most recent (1993, 1998) votes on the issue showed support for statehood stuck at 46% and not budging, support for outright independence at or under 4%, the other half asking for improvements to this… thing… we got now. Will gladly follow on the PR issue in an appropriate place if anyone asks.
Probably meaning the US Navy, or the US goverment?
When I first opened this thread, I thought it would be about Bush misplacing some important city in some of the European countries he is visiting. Granted, there is still no proof that he knows where the island of Vieques is located.
Polack was the accepted term in the time of Shakespeare, but currently, Polack is considered insulting and Pole is the preferred manner of speaking of a citizen of Poland (or of an immigrant or descendant of an immigrant from Poland in the U.S.).
As to not having the exact numbers of immigrants, why should he?
Look, I have no great love for the guy and there is a lot about him that I don’t much respect, either, but it’s one thing to get a good laugh on Letterman for his verbal foibles and something rather different (and, IMNAAHO, foolish) to get worked up over every dumb-sounding thing he says. We know he’s going to make dumb statements, let’s save our actual scorn for things that deserve them (like unilaterally abandoning the Kyoto treaty without having his replacement strategy formulated to be announced as its replacement and without warning our European allies so that they don’t get sandbagged in parliament).
Since he brought up Chicago’s Polish population, I would think it incumbent upon him to have some facts and figures. If he didn’t have any, he shouldn’t have brought it up.
Further, those are Poles that are living in the US. Many are now US citizens. They are not here on visas, which was the question asked. The question did not ask for immigration quotas, but only about visas.
That’s not relevant. I don’t know and I’m not expected to know. I’m not the President. I didn’t go to Poland. I didn’t bring up the subject of Chicago Poles. But at least I know the difference between a visa and a green card.
Viequeses are doing what they can to mooch the biggest pile of cash from the USN; piss on the pack of loony-whinners that should ensure they don’t mind being labeled (correctly) as communists.
Barb- “Pole” is NOT a slur. It’s the correct term for people from Poland. Lech Walesa is a Pole. John Paul II is a Pole.
When President Bush called Greeks “GRecians,” he was using an awkward, wrong-sounding word. When he called the people of Poland “Poles,” he was using the correct word.
I await your apology to the Prez- but am not holding my breath.
Bear in mind that this statement was made in answer to a question from a European reporter while Bush was on a state visit. Bush’s response, which you quoted, is an attempt to explain to a European outsider that while the PR’s have different views, they are still Americans and the Federal Government should respect their wishes with regard to Vieques. This is an entirely natural point of view coming from someone who believes in the Federal system, as Bush has demonstrated.
Although abandoning Vieques for training purposes is an impediment to the preparedness of our military forces, it is not our country’s best interest to continue this activity in the face of strong local opposition. Of course, there is disagreement within the Republican party. Vieques is a prime location for training. In their opinion, the ability of the US military to defend our borders should take precedence over local concern, as it is in the best interest of the nation as a whole. Again, not an unreasonable point of view. However, one way or another the USN will have to abandon it’s training ground eventually. PR has the option of a local referendum to toss the USN out. Bush is merely accepting the inevitable and getting the USN on track to identify a viable alternative before the hammer falls.
To clarify, “our friends and neighbors” is the same thing as “our fellow Americans”. “Us” is a reference to the Federal Government in any of it’s many forms. In this case - the US Navy. Remember, although Bush is by no means a complex man, he has the task of explaining complex problems to people only vaguely familiar with the issues. You can’t blame him for trying to express the problem in simple terms.
In response to barbitu8, I wouldn’t expect the President to know the relative percentages of any of the various ethnic groups in major cities throughout the US. I WOULD expect the Mayor of Chicago to have some general idea, though. The President can’t know everything. In modern terms, his job is to set foreign policy and drive the domestic agenda, NOT to be bothered with mundane trivia. (That’s what interns and the straightdope are for ) How many times have you referenced some general fact or idea without having a proper idea of the exact figures or a bibliography in the back or your head? He was just making conversation and trying to draw a point of commonality. Do you think the people of Poland were offended that he didn’t know there are about 1 million in Chicago, second only to Warsaw? How about this … If he had instead said “Oh yeah, there are 1 million Poles in Chicago.” We’d probably think he was showing off, or that he was reading from a prepared statement. Citing mundane and pointless trivia is a job better left to the likes of algore.
A little off subject , (zero-tolerence moderators are abundant here), but Kyoto was a piece of garbage if you really actually bother looking at it. Even Clinton had incredible reservations about it. Let’s not dog Bush about that one just yet.
) How many times have you referenced some general fact or idea without having a proper idea of the exact figures or a bibliography in the back or your head? He was just making conversation and trying to draw a point of commonality. Do you think the people of Poland were offended that he didn’t know there are about 1 million in Chicago, second only to Warsaw? How about this … If he had instead said “Oh yeah, there are 1 million Poles in Chicago.” We’d probably think he was showing off, or that he was reading from a prepared statement. Citing mundane and pointless trivia is a job better left to the likes of algore.